300
edits
Changes
Talk:Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District (view source)
Revision as of 01:11, June 2, 2008
, 01:11, June 2, 2008no edit summary
::Cronological order is important when telling the story so in any sensible prose it should go verdict, award, reduction on appeal. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 20:55, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
::Cronological order is important when telling the story so in any sensible prose it should go verdict, award, reduction on appeal. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 20:55, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
::: You were informed of this fact before on the Evolution article talk page. Even this anti-ACLU organization says so. [http://www.theacru.org/acru/the_aclus_exploitation_of_the_civil_rights_attorney_fee_act/] I think the award fee should be posted after the judges ruling, this is clearly not hiding information. It's funny that you are the one accusing me hiding information while at the same time removing pertinent facts. --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 21:11, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
*Why was mention of the lead law firm, Pepper Hamilton LLP, removed?
*Why was mention of the lead law firm, Pepper Hamilton LLP, removed?
:: No you removed it because you are trying to make this look like it is all the ACLU doing and not that of the parents and the law firm they hired. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 20:55, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
:: No you removed it because you are trying to make this look like it is all the ACLU doing and not that of the parents and the law firm they hired. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 20:55, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
:::Just as obscure and meaningless as the ACLU and the AU? What about the Thomas Moore Law center? You seem to have a thing for the lawsuits the ACLU is involved in. Your gripes and complaints about them are all over the ACLU article. --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 21:11, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
*Why was the legal reasoning the judge employed in his verdict removed? Shouldn't his reasoning involving the establishment clause, Lemon Test, other opinions about creationism, and the opinions of other jurists be included?
*Why was the legal reasoning the judge employed in his verdict removed? Shouldn't his reasoning involving the establishment clause, Lemon Test, other opinions about creationism, and the opinions of other jurists be included?
::Yes it is. You are the lawyer you should know this. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 20:55, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
::Yes it is. You are the lawyer you should know this. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 20:55, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
:::The fact that Judge Jones based his verdict on sound judicial precedent and legal reasoning is not important? In my opinion that sounds like a bizarre statement for lawyer to make. --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 21:11, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
*The idea that the parents sued to "censor any mention of intelligent design in public school" is without merit. If I am wrong I'm sure you could provide the reference that is required by the commandments.
*The idea that the parents sued to "censor any mention of intelligent design in public school" is without merit. If I am wrong I'm sure you could provide the reference that is required by the commandments.
:You might want to give references to support your "facts." And why should we mention the judge's reasoning if we know he is biased? [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 19:36, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
:You might want to give references to support your "facts." And why should we mention the judge's reasoning if we know he is biased? [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 19:36, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
:::The facts I wrote about were clearly presented in the judge's decision, obviously not 'liberal fluff'. The fact you removed them shows that you are clearly trying to hide something. --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 21:11, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
::WilliamH you are either you are a parodist or like Andy imagine everything in the world can be divided into liberal/conservative views. Somethings are testable facts and some important ones have been removed to the detriment of this article. Jimmy wrote a much better article then the one there now. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 20:55, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
::WilliamH you are either you are a parodist or like Andy imagine everything in the world can be divided into liberal/conservative views. Somethings are testable facts and some important ones have been removed to the detriment of this article. Jimmy wrote a much better article then the one there now. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 20:55, 1 June 2008 (EDT)